Massless Energy & Nothing.

[JR414]

thanks

[Odin]

I would like to point out some interesting facts myself on this topic. Although Einsteins Theory is relatively incorrect tehre is one aspect to which may be put into use in the gutting of Newtons Law of Potential Energy, one could call it the Special Theory of Potential Mass.

 

E=mc^2 so m=c^/E

 

In this equation the speed of light is known to be absolute throughout a vacuum at 186,000 mi/sec and that light is energy from a photon but gamma rays are from beta decay. There are two distinctly different masses here where a beta particle in decay has an atomic mass of 4 whereas a photon has a mass of 0.01. It would therewith only be logical that the gamma rays have more energy but what is the mass of these elecromagnetic energy is another question.

It is impossible to figure out because one doesnt know the energy that was used to emit the particle to begin with to which is the unknown variable E secondary to E and therewith the equation is unsolvableOf course if one knew the appx energy required to cause a beta particle to be ejected from Uranium in its radioactive decay one could follow closely the energy output and mass of that energy output in its complete decay to a stable isotope.

[CraigD]

… light is energy from a photon but gamma rays are from beta decay.

This statement is inaccurate.

 

Visible light exists in the form of photons. Gamma rays exist in the form of photons. The only difference between a photon of visible light, and a gamma ray photon, is their frequencies: from about 4*10^14 to 8*10^14 Hz for visible light, vs. about 3*10^20 to 3*10^19 to 3*10^22 Hz for gamma rays.

 

As Odin states, Gamma rays are generated by radioactive decay. They are generated by any interaction in the necessary energy range, such as, but not restricted to, electron-positron annihilation.

There are two distinctly different masses here where a beta particle in decay has an atomic mass of 4 whereas a photon has a mass of 0.01.

A Beta particle is simply the name given to an electron or a positron. A Beta particle does not have a mass of 4 u. A Beta particle of either kind – electron or positron has a mass of about 0.0005 u.

 

A photon does not have a mass of 0.01 u. It has a mass of 0.

It would therewith only be logical that the gamma rays have more energy

Because gamma ray photons have a higher frequency than visible light photons, they have more energy. The energy of a photon as a function of its frequency is given precisely by the formula

 

[math]E=hf[/math]

where [math]E[/math] is energy, [math]h[/math] is Planck’s constant (about 6.6*10^-24 J s), and [math]f[/math] is the photon’s frequency.

 

A typical gamma ray photon, therefore, has about 100,000 to 100,000,000 times the energy of a photon of visible light.

It is impossible to figure out because one doesnt know the energy that was used to emit the particle to begin with

It is not impossible to determine the frequency (and corresponding energy) of a photon of either visible light or gamma rays. Any spectroscope can measure frequency precisely – although gamma ray photons are slightly more complicated to detect in a spectroscope than photons of visible light, requiring the use of a scintillator or similar means (ie: a gamma camera).

 

All of the above can be found in a standard physics reference, such as the wikipedia article “Electromagnetic spectrum”.

[Odin]

I would like to point out I did refer to Uranium decay to which the beta particle is indeed 2 electrons and two protons giving the mass of helium without the neutrons. The expelling of the beta particle itself is the creativity of gamma rays.

Visible light is the energy of photons that is near the microwave range on the electromagnetic spectrum.A photon does not travel far and is usually reabsorbed into the electron it was expelled from.Since a photon is emitted from an electron its mass would be about one-tenth of the electron and in its expellation causes light to be emitted.

The Planck equation itself relatively proves Einsteins Theory to be useless in Physics except for extraneous calculations but in itself the Planks equation could be used to solve for E in other applications of the formula where E is not the variable.

In respect to the energy emitted from the emission of a particle i was referring to alpha and beta energy[not particles and not gamma rays or gamma particles] Gamma Rays can be detected by the use of an ionization tube to which the clicks given off are measured in Rods and converted to eV

to which is equivilant to 1 volt times the charge of a single electron. Uranium 235 in its decay gives of 200 MeV per cycle of decay.

 

In measuring Electronvolts the equation here is used:

 

E=hv= hc/u = 1240nMeV/u

 

where E=Energy, h=Planks Constant

 

In retrospect I was merely indicating that energy could have a mass and could be calculated by Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity, but otherwise the mass of an electron is appx 0.999,photon or positron = 0.01 and mass of energy would be way less than this but otherwise 0.001 or less and the force of the energy would be the massless force from the emission

[ronthepon]

I would like to point out I did refer to Uranium decay to which the beta particle is indeed 2 electrons and two protons giving the mass of helium without the neutrons. The expelling of the beta particle itself is the creativity of gamma rays.

The beta particle may be an electron or a positron. Craig's already said that. Wiki it, google it, whatever. What you're describing comes close to an alpha particle, the difference being that an alpha has two neutrons, not electrons.

 

Visible light is the energy of photons that is near the microwave range on the electromagnetic spectrum.

To be precise, between the infra-red and ultra-violet reigions.

 

A photon does not travel far and is usually reabsorbed into the electron it was expelled from.

Is that so? When an excited electron emits a photon, then it's extremely rare that the photon is reabsorbed by that same electron.

 

Since a photon is emitted from an electron its mass would be about one-tenth of the electron and in its expellation causes light to be emitted.

Ofcourse the photon's expellation causes the expellation of light, The photon is light.:)

 

About the one tenth mass bit, using E=mc^2, you'll end up with a gamma wave of frequency 10^18. Okay...

[Mike C]

Omega

 

Your statement that 'energy should exist without mass' is false and mass is NOT the source of energy.

 

Energy is the product of FORCES only. 90 t0 95% of the energy in the universe is the result of star light and the surface hydrogen atoms that produce this light. The main component of the photons is the magnetic force that varies in strength resulting from the electron transitions within the atom or the plasma in the central portion of the stars that generate higher open orbital photons that migrate to the surface.

 

All energies are the product of forces and that includes the gravitational, EM, strong and the weak.

 

NS

[CraigD]

About the one tenth mass bit, using E=mc^2, you'll end up with a gamma wave of frequency 10^18. Okay...

That 10^18 Hz photon would fall in the high end of the soft xray band (3*10^16 to 3*10^18 Hz) of the EM spectrum, about 1/30th the energy need to place it in the gamma ray band.

 

Ron’s calculations are a good illustration of why we don’t find gamma rays being emitted by the ordinary excitation and emission of and by electrons in atoms, but instead usually in electron-positron annihilations ([math]e^- + e^+ \rightarrow \gamma[/math]) - electrons in atoms aren’t massive enough to emit photons with such high energies. It also shows why photons of visible light can’t cause pair production ([math]\gamma \rightarrow e^- + e^+[/math]) – they don’t have enough energy to be transformed into the mass of an electron-positron pair.

 

[math]E=mc^2[/math] is a very useful formula, without which phenomena like these would be difficult to explain.

[Odin]

In respect to Rontopons above post hydrogen and helium in vacuo will not diffuse a fusion reaction automatically

 

[test it in vacuo on earth-no fusion reaction due to the fact that although an artificial vacuum is created the forces of gravity are still present within the vacuum tube affecting the atoms]

 

but otherwise the hydrogen atom will emit photons and reasorb them,not neccesarily in the same electron but a nearby one-and likewise electrons could possibly share photons...but light is not a photon-a photon emits light.

 

The photon must have mass and the photon cannot be light or you are indicating that the mass of the electron is infinite but otherwise that energy still must have some mass in order to reabsorb in a photon.

 

Force on the other hand is a massless energy that cannot be absorbed but otherwise keeps moving in wave formation until its path is broken or stopped by an object able to dissipate the force or otherwise reduce it.

[ronthepon]

First of all, I might have misunderstood some parts of your post. In case I have done so, I apologise.

In respect to Rontopons above post hydrogen and helium in vacuo will not diffuse a fusion reaction automatically

 

[test it in vacuo on earth-no fusion reaction due to the fact that although an artificial vacuum is created the forces of gravity are still present within the vacuum tube affecting the atoms]

Agreed, hydrogen-helium will not give rise to nuclear fusion all by itself, but what does this have to do with the matter under discussion?

 

but otherwise the hydrogen atom will emit photons and reasorb them,not neccesarily in the same electron but a nearby one-and likewise electrons could possibly share photons...but light is not a photon-a photon emits light.

 

Then I must provide links then. I hope these two will be sufficient to convince you.

Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

photon - a definition from Whatis.com

 

Photons are light. In the quantum picture of light, Light is composed of photons. Only photons. Photons do not emit something else, that we may call light.

The photon must have mass and the photon cannot be light or you are indicating that the mass of the electron is infinite but otherwise that energy still must have some mass in order to reabsorb in a photon.

How does the assertion that 'photons make up light' imply that electrons have infinite mass? Nah, I'm probably missing something here.

 

Force on the other hand is a massless energy that cannot be absorbed but otherwise keeps moving in wave formation until its path is broken or stopped by an object able to dissipate the force or otherwise reduce it.

Force is not energy at all. Force and energy are two very different physical quantities. They even have different units, and dimensions. Are you reffering to something else?

I'm really sorry, Odin, but I must admit that I'm not finding it easy to understand your assertions.

[Odin]

These Wikopedia sources are ZOG affiliated sources for the ignorant and the lazy who do not wish to apply physics in therom to either disprove or otherwise creat a new theorom. This is what happened to Einstein in all his greed...if it wasnt for Einstein escaping Europe he would be sitting in a NAZI cell as a threat to the administration of the Republic.

Einsteins theroms and research in PArticle Theory was all obscured and twisted from already existing theroms. His projects with the United States Army concerning magnetic fields were all fraudulent both in theorom and scientific process to which is why the Particle Theory was not greatly recognized in the scientific community and Atomic Theory is greatly more appreciated.

Furthermore some types of information is kept under guise for reasons as we are talking about energy to which is better left unknown to the ignorant and incompetent for a person with knowledge on alpha particle and energy emission could start doing experiments.

I can assure you that light is an actual particle emission and what you see as white light is the nonmass energy emission from that emission. In what forms of evidence would you ask I base this assumption on? My grandmother used to run a salon and had tanning booths. These bulbs emit real beta energy and you can seriously injure yourself with improper use or handling. The heat generated from these beds cannot be felt and you can aquire a serious epidermal burn from overexposure.

An ultraviolet light is the alpha conversion of a tanning saloon bulb and incapable of emitting beta aprticles and energy. You could sit under an ultraviolet lamp all day with no damage at all but one hour under a beta emitting lamp can seriosly injure you.

In conclusion light is a mere alpha emission of a particle and will emit even from beta emissions and therewith light is massless and consists of no particle formation.Ionic formation maybe in order to reabsorb to another source such as subatomic particles. Light will travel forever unblocaded but once the source is diminished the light will end and will discontinue to travel.

Light only travels as long as the source is existant or in function and due to the fact is the great velocity attributted to light.In fact a star can burn out 100 llight years away and the light of that star will shine visible on earth for another three days after extinction , not by the theory that light travels forever but it takes three days for the visible light not to be visible anymore as light emitted from the star prior to extinction is still travelling to the earth but the light source is now gone so ionic emissions do not occur.

In all consistancy to theory of light , light will only travel a certain distance of 336 light years and an observer beyond that distance would envision the star when the light reached thier planet the day the light reached them but when he looks in the sky the star is gone because it is no longer emitting light as the source is dead.

Light existance is like time it only exists to perception but otherwise light has no mass or substance and is the lowest energy emission, although the electromagnetic tables indicate different alpha energy is not deemed to be part of this spectrum except in the indication of visible lights frequency within the spectrum but otherwise is seperate from electromagnetic spectrum as it is not an elecromagnetic emission.

Light is a creation of how the mind percieves the spectrum and if we didnt have retinas then we wouldnt percieve light as we do but what if we percieved light in another mode by another way of energy? We would be constantly bombarded by sensory input all the time from our eyes from the sun even at night from the beta energy passing through the atmosphere.

AS a rule light exists to be percieved and treavels at great velocities but if there is no observation of a source then it doesnt exist and light only exists to which can be percieved to travel within the confines of dusk to dawn to which is merely 336 light years.

On a level of psychology anything beyond that would be pointless to say existed even by knowledge that the universe is beyond no one here will live to see the wonders of the universe beyond that except by satallite images and increased telescopic equiptment mounted upon these satallites.Probes sent out will take years to travel to aquire info from the great beyond but why bother? Isnt the 336 light year distances radius good enough? What is beyond that cannot be seen within 336 light years. Nothing it is all the same

[CraigD]

These Wikopedia sources are ZOG affiliated sources for the ignorant and the lazy who do not wish to apply physics in therom to either disprove or otherwise creat a new theorom.

According to the rules that you agreed to follow when you joined hypography, you should back up your claims with links or references – especially if your claims are “strange” – that is, in disagreement with most members of hypography, the larger scientific community, and society in general.

 

The claim that wikipedia is affiliated with “the Zionist Occupation Government” is a strange claim, as is the claim that it is intended for use only by “the ignorant and the lazy”. Before I will dignify this or any future similar posts with a response, I ask that you support your claims with verifiable evidence, in the form of links or references to published data.

 

As wikipedia articles support their claims with links to many sources, and generally agree with the majority of reference material pertaining to their subjects, by rejecting it as a source, you are effectively rejecting the whole of academic literature. At the same time, you are using many words – energy, mass, particle, etc. – in ways inconsistent with their conventional definitions. Should you wish to describe your unconventional ideas, you should precisely and formally define the terms you use, and, ideally, not use the same words used in conventional theories.

 

Be warned that references to ZOG are widely considered hate speech, which is a violation of hypography’s site rules. If you persist in referencing this conspiracy theory as if it is established fact, you may be banned from participating in these forums.

[Erasmus00]

In response to Odin's rant:

 

Please give me ANY evidence to believe anything you have just said. As it stands, you seem to be presenting essentially gibberish and expecting people to swallow it. Practically nothing you have said agrees with experimentally verified physics.

 

Why do you believe that a photon emits light (instead of a photon BEING light)? Prove it. Provide me with a working theory. Else this could wind up strange claims.

-Will

[infamous]

AS a rule light exists to be percieved and treavels at great velocities but if there is no observation of a source then it doesnt exist and light only exists to which can be percieved to travel within the confines of dusk to dawn to which is merely 336 light years.

This is absoulte gibberish Odin. If you don't start making some sense and supplying some evidence for your strange beliefs, we may be forced to delete this nonsense...........................Infy

[ronthepon]

These Wikopedia sources are ZOG affiliated sources for the ignorant and the lazy who do not wish to apply physics in therom to either disprove or otherwise creat a new theorom. This is what happened to Einstein in all his greed...if it wasnt for Einstein escaping Europe he would be sitting in a NAZI cell as a threat to the administration of the Republic.

Einstein? Were we discussing him? Or the source for wiki? Well, actually I did provide that one other link. If you want I'll do google also, and yahoo, and ask, and whatever you want. Actually, every link in the world is ZOG affiliated then.

 

Photon+definition - Google Search=

 

Wait a minute... this has got to be a worldwide conspiracy then, every source that claims that photons are light are ZOG affiliated... including me!

 

BTW, I've learnt about ZOG only last year... :phones:

 

Einsteins theroms and research in PArticle Theory was all obscured and twisted from already existing theroms. His projects with the United States Army concerning magnetic fields were all fraudulent both in theorom and scientific process to which is why the Particle Theory was not greatly recognized in the scientific community and Atomic Theory is greatly more appreciated.

Furthermore some types of information is kept under guise for reasons as we are talking about energy to which is better left unknown to the ignorant and incompetent for a person with knowledge on alpha particle and energy emission could start doing experiments.

What were we discussing again?

 

I can assure you that light is an actual particle emission and what you see as white light is the nonmass energy emission from that emission.

Light is particle emmision in the quantum picture. Agreed.

 

We see white light when these photons collide with the retina in our eye.

 

Where did you come up with these newe concepts anyway? What's your source of learning or inference? Wait a second, you have given your sources... let me see them.

 

In what forms of evidence would you ask I base this assumption on? My grandmother used to run a salon and had tanning booths. These bulbs emit real beta energy and you can seriously injure yourself with improper use or handling. The heat generated from these beds cannot be felt and you can aquire a serious epidermal burn from overexposure.

An ultraviolet light is the alpha conversion of a tanning saloon bulb and incapable of emitting beta aprticles and energy. You could sit under an ultraviolet lamp all day with no damage at all but one hour under a beta emitting lamp can seriosly injure you.

Here are my questions. Answer them numberwise if you have answers.

 

Q1 What is beta energy?

 

Q2 How do you know the bulbs emitted beta energy?

 

Q3 The heat generated from these beds? Cannot be felt???

 

Q4 What is a 'alpha conversion'?

 

Q5 How do you know that UV light is a 'alpha conversion' of a tanning saloon bulb?

 

Q6 How do you know that UV light is incapable of carrying or emmiting energy?

 

Okay, I agree with that, UV light cant EMIT energy by itself, I mean we all know that light doesent EMIT energy. And we also know that UV is a type of light. Right?

 

Q7 What exactly did you observe? I see only your inferences here, what did you observe?

 

In conclusion light is a mere alpha emission of a particle and will emit even from beta emissions and therewith light is massless and consists of no particle formation.Ionic formation maybe in order to reabsorb to another source such as subatomic particles. Light will travel forever unblocaded but once the source is diminished the light will end and will discontinue to travel.

Nah, we didn't know that. We'll just have to wait for Odin to prove it.

 

What is beta emmision? What is alpha emmision?

 

Light only travels as long as the source is existant or in function and due to the fact is the great velocity attributted to light.In fact a star can burn out 100 llight years away and the light of that star will shine visible on earth for another three days after extinction , not by the theory that light travels forever but it takes three days for the visible light not to be visible anymore as light emitted from the star prior to extinction is still travelling to the earth but the light source is now gone so ionic emissions do not occur.

What theory? Light doesn't travel forever. All you need is something opaque to block it's path.

 

And if the star is located 4.2 light years away? Will it still take 3 minuted for us to realise? No.

 

It will take us 4.2 years to realise it. Do you disagree? Ofcourse not, everybody knows that light travels with a finite speed.

 

In all consistancy to theory of light , light will only travel a certain distance of 336 light years and an observer beyond that distance would envision the star when the light reached thier planet the day the light reached them but when he looks in the sky the star is gone because it is no longer emitting light as the source is dead.

What? Whay 336 light years? Why not 337? Or 340? Or for that matter, infinite? Didn't you say that light will travel forever? What about that?

 

Light existance is like time it only exists to perception but otherwise light has no mass or substance and is the lowest energy emission, although the electromagnetic tables indicate different alpha energy is not deemed to be part of this spectrum except in the indication of visible lights frequency within the spectrum but otherwise is seperate from electromagnetic spectrum as it is not an elecromagnetic emission.

Nope. Light existance is like moving photons, travelling electromagnetic waves, whatever you may call it.

 

What is alpha energy?

 

Light is a creation of how the mind percieves the spectrum and if we didnt have retinas then we wouldnt percieve light as we do but what if we percieved light in another mode by another way of energy? We would be constantly bombarded by sensory input all the time from our eyes from the sun even at night from the beta energy passing through the atmosphere.

What is beta energy?

 

Light is not how the mind percieves the spectrum. Even if there were no living beings anywhere, light would have been there, the same way as it has been there.

 

AS a rule light exists to be percieved and treavels at great velocities but if there is no observation of a source then it doesnt exist and light only exists to which can be percieved to travel within the confines of dusk to dawn to which is merely 336 light years.

Nope. Light can exist even if you don't percieve it. For an experiment, create a shut box and make a bulb glow in it. Obviously you're not looking into the box, and are not percieving the light inside. Then where on earth is the power used by the bulb going off to?

 

On a level of psychology anything beyond that would be pointless to say existed even by knowledge that the universe is beyond no one here will live to see the wonders of the universe beyond that except by satallite images and increased telescopic equiptment mounted upon these satallites.Probes sent out will take years to travel to aquire info from the great beyond but why bother? Isnt the 336 light year distances radius good enough? What is beyond that cannot be seen within 336 light years. Nothing it is all the same

The universe exists beyond 336 light years, and we have seen it. And why isin't your limit 340? What's with 336?

 

Anyway, we have never even tried to send probes 336 light years away.

 

Well, oobviously you have some unclarified physics concepts. What really makes things worse for you is your complete refusal to learn from other sources as well. I have no idea about your own sources, and I'd love it if you provided them here, so that atleast we'd be able to see where all this came from.

[Odin]

I have just recieved an infraction for making a wild claim...whereas you people would eat the wild claim of Einstein who arranged experiments conducted by the military in magnatism.To bounce radar or otherwise evade radar.Since this has nothing to do with the workings of an atom this is particle theory and not atomic theory.

What you want is proof..proof I cannot give for what kind of prrof you want is fusion theories ... I would be centred out by Zionists but in retrospect is no wild allegation...and I can assure you that if light is photons like you say then an atoms electron should vaporize and the atom would no longer exist and therewith the Fusion Theory is not longer existant because Fusion Energy is recyclable as it is conducted ina vacuum and not an atmosphere. The sun gives off light constantly and for over 100,000,000. At that rate the sun should not be able to support life on earth anymore as all its energy is depleted.What you are saying is that light is photons whereas I say it is alpha energy.

There is no infraction just different scientific views. Light is not particles but ionized energy capable of travelling at great velocities and is only pervievable by the conscouss mind to the limitations of its speed travel. You or no one will ever live to see the universe past 356 light years and you can give me all the infractions you want or disable my account..viewpoints is something you cant change even with evidence. This is a forumsite to where everybody assumes to be right unless disproven by scientific fact and not therom.

There is a difference to where fact is absolute whereas theorom is relative. So go ahead and disable my account for making a theorom. Furthermore indicating ZOG to control the education system is not a hate crime but a harsh reality

[CraigD]

There is a difference to where fact is absolute whereas theorom is relative.

Because your obvious misunderstanding of conventional physics is so profound, until now I’ve avoided correcting your diction. One mistake you have consistently made, however, bears correction, as it’s irritating to experienced readers, and possibly confusing to inexperienced ones.

 

The term “theorem”, usually used in mathematical discussion, means something proven or to be proven from other theorems of postulates. It is not an alternative spelling of “theory”. In scientific discussion, a theory is an explanation of physical reality that makes predictions that can be tested by experiments. “Physical law” refers to very useful or well-supported scientific theories. Scientific conversation tends to avoid use of the word “fact”, because of its connotation of absolute correctness, however, its scientific meaning is “something verified”, roughly synonymous with “observation”.

 

As far as I can tell, every place you have used the word “theorem”, you should have used “theory”, or “hypothesis”.

 

Confusing “theory” and “theorem” is a common mistake, particularly among primary and secondary (grades K-12) students. Nearly every member of a forum like hypography understands and uses these terms correctly. If you persist in misusing them, many people will think you are stupid or mentally unsound.

[Odin]

Well I can see why a person like me would get that confused. Theoroms in Chemistry are different as the application of particle theory is more accurate than the application of Atomic Theorom. Although chemistry involves the workings and consistancies of the element the fact is that the basis of chemistry expands beyond atomic theory and into the realm of particle theory to where charges ions are in play.

In physics relativity is something that cannot be compared by one fact whereas absolution is the mathematically correct fact from formulation to which indicates one fact and not many. In all essence an answer of infinity or zero indicate an error in a physics equation. So does less than zero [except to where you are travelling along a two or three dimensional plane and the direction of travel is reversed]

A postulate is generally a theory until proven otherwise to which it becomes a theorom by absolute calculation and not tattered facts. Once a postulate is found to be correct in abolute fact it is a theorom and is therewith considered to be absolute....otherwise it is all relative...in fact most conversations within these forums are relative.